Reece’s Riffs

Let me start off by saying that just because characters in the media can be diverse doesn’t mean they should be forced to be so.

I’m a social progressive. I have no issues with people calling for reform in the areas of race, gender, and, in this case, sexual identity and preferences. I’m a supporter of the LGBT community and have several friends who are apart of this as well. I was ecstatic to hear about the United States court decision that nationally legalized marriage between same sex couples and have lashed out on social media when it comes to the new “LGBT Jim Crow” laws popping up in states like South Carolina and Mississippi. I know that while the LGBT community has come far, that does not mean they have achieved total acceptance and should continue to press towards that equal treatment they ask for and deserve.

However, a recent movement has sprung from the deepest darkest pit of hell, sorry, I mean Tumblr, and Twitter that has spurred me to write this article, and that is the #GiveElsaAGirlfriend movement.

If you don’t know, Frozen is a 2013 Disney animated picture based on the Snow Queen fairy tale that was a commercial and critical smash, thanks to tons of merchandise sales and the monster smash single from the film “Let It Go”. In the film, the Snow Queen Elsa is born with ice powers and thanks to being sheltered physically and mentally by her accidental abusive parents for most of her life, runs away and declares a permanent winter in their country. Elsa’s sister, Anna, must then travel to her to get her back and show the power of true family love and all that good Disney stuff. Personally, I liked the film, if you discount the absolutely godawful first third, and while it isn’t my favorite Disney animated film (Princess and the Frog and Jungle Book are tied for that spot, btw) it’s still pretty good. However, most people absolutely adored it, calling it one of the greatest animated movies, if not greatest movie in Disney history.

I can understand where they come from, in that Frozen does subvert and twist some of the familiar aspects of fairy tails, in that (spoilers) a dashing man doesn’t save the day, the romantic interest turns out to be a douchenozzle, and there is no wedding as the ending. It’s for these and other bits and pieces that people hail the movie for, and while that’s all fine and good, I feel like it’s going a step too far with the aforementioned #GiveElsaAGirlfriend.

The hashtag has been spread around like wildfire and has people clamoring for the idea that Elsa should come out in the announced sequel, Frozen 2, as a homosexual and should have a girlfriend. The basis for this? All I can gather is that it stems from the notion that Elsa didn’t get together with a guy in the first film and that “Let it Go” has become sort of a LGBT anthem for “coming out of the closet” and publicly admitting their sexual identity.

All fine and good, but do we NEED a lesbian Elsa? My answer: no.

Am I saying that kids should not be exposed to anything in regards to the LGBT community? Absolutely not. My favorite show on right now, Steven Universe takes the themes of same-sex love, gender identity, and sex and makes them not only kid friendly but also incredibly thought provoking. Hell, Paranorman had one hell of a twist near the end in regards to this that I will absolutely not spoil here and I thought that that was a great subversion of tropes and was a great moment for LGBT characters in film. We can’t keep kids sheltered from this for long, and while I know that people do have the fear it will cause their kids to go on Tumblr and become otherkin and things like that, while I sympathize, the sooner we help show kids that this is acceptable in our society the better off we are as a society. So no, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have LGBT representation in children’s media. If anything, it should increase a bit.

So why am I against Elsa coming out as a lesbian? Well, because it isn’t needed. Reading tweets that used the hashtag, I’ve come to the conclusion that most people want Elsa to come out as gay not for the sake of her character, but for the sake of presenting a member of the LGBT community in a positive role model role and for members of the community to feel like they can step into the shoes of a Disney princess.

Okay. Why can’t Disney create a new character that is also a strong female role model and have her already established as a lesbian? Why is it “needed” that Elsa come out? Just because she didn’t end up with a guy? What if she isn’t interested in a relationship at all with either gender?

This is a problem I have in regards to diversity in media. It’s not that creators aren’t trying to be diverse, it’s more that diversity is more being forced than being organically created.

People complain that there are not enough diverse role models in comics for instance. Lack of strong female characters, lack of racial minorities, etc. So what should comic creators do? For the most part, it seems to take a previously established character, kick them out of the role, and put a new character of minority status in the role. Let’s use Miles Morales, a Black-Hispanic, taking over the mantle of Spider-Man in the Marvel Ultimate line, for this example. While I’m not saying that Miles Morales isn’t a good character, it feels less like a person taking up the mantle of a popular superhero who happens to of an ethnicity other than caucasian, it more feels like an ethnicity taking up the mantle who happens to be his own character.

Let’s take a look at the recent Ghostbusters controversy as well, shall we? While I attest that the trailer shouldn’t be judged on the fact that it’s just the introduction of a female led cast and should be judged on the fact it’s absolutely unfunny and cringingly awful, there is something to be said about the casting. Not knocking the cast at all, who are all great actors and comedians, but when you watch the trailer, does it feel more like “Wow, these people are the Ghostbusters and just happen to be women” or “Wow, in a bit to try to appear progressive, the produciton company decided to go with female protagonists just to get a little shine on their ‘progressive buttons’”? Do you see where I am going with this?

Forced diversity is just as bad as no diversity, to me. It forces creators to abandon their image and try to appeal to masses. If a creator has the idea for an LGBT character, that’s absolutely fine. But if a creator has an idea for a character and has no plans for their sexuality but is forced to make that character have characteristics of someone on the LGBT for no other reason than to appear diverse, that I have a problem with because the character becomes less a character and more pandering to the leftist, gormless gerbil creatures of Buzzfeed.

That’s the primary reason that I am not a fan of movements like #GiveElsaAGirlfriend or any other campaign trying to get diversity in media (aside from the Star Wars one because Finn x Poe is OTP 4 life), because it seems less like making media more creative driven and more making it consumer driven. It becomes more pandering and psuedo-progressive bullshit that makes it that diversity in media isn’t so much evidence of a progressive society, but more as a selling point to get butts in theaters or eyes on comics. I think Alan Moore said it best: “It’s not the job of the artist to give the audience what the audience wants. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audience. They would be the artists. It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need.”

If Elsa does come out of the closet, then I just hope it comes from the will of the creators, and not the will of the consumers.

Really, I should end the review at that. It’s a puzzle game that rewards the player in Hentai styled nude photos of attractive women. That should be the end of the story right there. You can probably find the same kind of setup for free on some crappy Adult Flash games site or on Newgrounds.com without paying the 10 bucks on Steam for it. After all, porn is porn and porn is available for free everywhere on the internet. Why should you put down money for a game that’s main attraction can be sought out online?

Because porn aside, it’s a ridiculously addictive and fun puzzle game/ dating sim. But before we get into that, let’s get into the story, and yes, I actually paid attention to the story in this.

You are a hapless, young virgin who is down on his luck with the girls and has the confidence of a puppy who just got scolded for peeing on the rug. That is until you meet the fairy, Kyu, who has been sent to turn you into the biggest stud muffin this side of Johnny Depp. Your mission is to go on at least 4 dates with 9 selectable women whom you will eventually sleep with and advance one step closer to becoming the greatest sex magnet to ever live.

To win your dates, you must complete a Candy Crush-esque puzzle involving matching 3 or more of a kind of symbol within a given amount of moves. These puzzles are what make the game for me. They are addictive and challenging, and at points, hair-pullingly frustrating. There are broken hearts which destroy a lot of your progress, pink hearts that act as a multiplier, bells that give your extra moves, and upgrades you can purchase throughout the game.

You pay for upgrades with Hunie, which you get after talking to the women you are looking to bed. You learn about them, their interests, facts about their lives (and cup size), and giving them gifts you pay for with the money you get after a successful date. The more dates you go on, the more money and the more challenging the puzzles become.

As mentioned before, the puzzles are the star of the show. I never played Candy Crush, but if it is the same as the puzzles here, I understand now why it’s so damn popular. It’s a game that makes you feel victorious after completing a date that you had trouble dealing with. Beating the puzzles becomes a goal in of itself, which, going into the game, I had no idea that that was going to be the factor that kept me playing.

Another thing I was surprised at digging was the dating sim elements, though I wish they would have been expanded upon. While the game essentially boils down to “Talk to woman, remember facts, answer questions, sleep with” at times, it helps knowing that the women you are courting aren’t just there to please every kind of fetish. They actually have some decent personalities and characters that I found myself growing attached to. Personal favorites include Nikki, the introverted typical nerd, Kyanna, the bubbly fitness enthusiast, Aiko, the cynical and sarcastic school teacher, Beli, the sweet and kind spiritualist, and Kyu, who speaks almost entirely in slang and memes (#Noice).

Every woman is memorable in someway and leave an impact on you even after turning the game off. I give credit to the great voice acting and voice acting direction for making the normally groan inducing dialog come off as natural for their characters and more endearing than cliche. There are even some laughs to be had, with one big one coming after talking with Audrey, the sociopathic party girl, for the first time. I won’t give much away, just make sure to answer one of her questions in the most 420-ist way possible. Fo shizzle.

But I’ve put it off long enough, let’s talk about sex. Yes, in this game, there is nudity and plenty of it. Thankfully the women are all above legal age, so it doesn’t come off as weird when seeing a nude sent by a small chested cheerleader who is still technically a teenager. But the game does function to serve a lot of fetishes, including the 3 secret characters. There is Cerberus, a blue skinned alien to please the Captain Kirk enthusiasts, Venus, the actual goddess of love and Kyu’s boss to please the Greek and Roman Myth enthusiasts, and…….*sigh* Momo, the catgirl servant girl to please the catgirl servant enthusiasts. Odd, but I don’t judge. However, the thing that helps keep HuniePop outside of the “cheap hentai game” list is the fact that, well, the porn itself is nice to look at. I’m not saying that because it pleases my male sexual fantasies, I’m saying that the art itself is really nice. A standard anime aesthetic, sure, but none the less, still appealing to look at.

Though, I feel the game could have been a lot better. While the focus on the puzzles and porn was paramount, and rightfully so, I still would have liked more effort going into the dating sim elements. I did get into these characters and I wouldn’t have minded more dramatic or romantic options to discuss. Take Kyanna, for instance, who is a single mother. That could have made for some great drama down the line. As is, it’s still fine, but I feel that it could have been expanded on further. Plus, the music itself wasn’t that noteworthy and I found myself turning it off for the most part.

HuniePop is one of those surprising games that knows it’s cheesecake, embraces that fact, but also makes sure it’s also delicious to eat. As said before, the art is great, the characters aren’t unlikable enough to be annoyed by, and the puzzles are really fun. I’d hesitate to call this one of the best puzzle games ever, because it really isn’t, but it’s certainly one of the best I’ve played in a while. The developer behind the game, HuniePot, is already in development for their next game, HunieCamStudio, a sequel which is set to be more of a Tycoon sort of game, featuring the cast of HuniePop with new characters in a kind of Chibi art style.

You can currently get this on Steam for $9.99 (though I got it for around $3.50 during the Black Friday sale) with the soundtrack and digital art collection going for $3.99, if you so feel inclined to purchase them as well.

My final rating for HuniePop is a 3.75/5 and I would recommend purchasing this game for full price.

I freaking love Kaiju (Japanese Giant Monster) movies, and by proxy, I love Godzilla. There is something cathartic, awesome, and nostalgic about watching Godzilla tear up Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, etc., while at the same time beating the snot out of a bunch of badass monsters either by himself or with a few friends. If I had to pick favorites, personally I’d choose the original 1954 Gojira (and to a lesser extent the 1956 American re-cut), 1962’s King Kong vs Godzilla, and 2004’s Godzilla: Final Wars. As for worst? 1971’s Godzilla vs. Hedorah, 1973’s Godzilla vs. Megalon, and by far the worst of them all and a possible contender for worst Kaiju movie of all time, 1969’s All Monsters Attack, A.K.A Godzilla’s Revenge. I don’t count Tri-Star’s 1998 Zilla because it is a Godzilla movie in name only. But yeah, being the big fan of the King of the Monsters I am, I was actually pretty hyped when I saw the trailers to the 2014 American reboot Godzilla. And after watching it, I can safely say that if this is the beginning of a new series (and reports are saying sequels are on the way), then this is a series I can get behind because I came out of Godzilla 2014 one happy camper.

Giving a plot synopsis is a little useless because if you have seen any Kaiju movie, honestly, you have a pretty good idea how the movie goes; establishing human characters, disturbances, guy finds the answer, is too late or no one believes him, enemy monster awakens, stuff is destroyed, Godzilla appears, kills it, goes back into the water, roll credits. Despite simplicity and predictability, this formula has been done well many times in the past, and really, any simplistic and predictable story can still make for a tense and epic story. Such is the case here. While parts drag at times and you do spend more time with the human characters, you really don’t notice while watching nor care because the writing is good enough to make you see past those shortcomings.

Easily the strength of the movie is it’s casting, with a fantastic and tragic performances by Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe and surprisingly good performances like Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen. This cast and direction really breath life and emotion into characters that, in lesser hands, would be cliched at best or insulting at the worst. Props to director Gareth Edwards that. However, it should be stated that all of the child actors in this movie are terrible, even by child actors standards. Either they are too wooden or too boring, but their scenes don’t last too long, so it’s not that worth griping about.

And, of course, it wouldn’t be an awesome Kaiju movie without Kaiju action, and I’ll say that I was satisfied by the action scenes. The cinematography was great in following the action, no shaky cam, and gave us a good idea of scale. The fights themselves were awesome and made me return to that little kid inside all of us where we just gleefully squeal as Godzilla goes mano-y-mano (or in this movie mano-y-manos) with a crazy creature. I’m not ashamed to say that I yelled “YEAH!” when Godzilla used his trademark blue radiation fire.
Is Godzilla perfect? No. While I thought the movie was paced well, for some, it may drag on and feel like a chore to get through to see the monsters. There is also a few fake-out scenes, that to me were hilarious, to others where really annoying and was nothing more than cop-outs. Also, this is not a movie where science is the most accurate. It may just be nit-picking, but when the MUTO (the monster whom Godzilla faces) is flying through San Francisco, how is it that the building’s windows do not shatter under the gust? Or is that just me?

I enjoyed Godzilla, plain and simple, and give it 3 and a half stars out of 4 possible stars. It’s great action with great pacing with great characters with a GREAT monster battle. I would readily recommend it to any monster movie fan, or anyone who loves “popcorn” movies. Don’t be put off by the fact that Godzilla looks like he put on the Madea fat suit, because when he steps onto the screen and roars his trademark roar, all you will care about will be how bad his opponent is screwed.

Cinema, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Reece’s Riffs. It’s continuing mission, to explore strange foreign films. To seek out new classics and avoid clunkers. To boldly go where no critic has gone before.

I doubt I will feel as much passion for a movie like I did with Star Trek Into Darkness this year, but for all the wrong reasons. I must admit to being a “Trekkie”, growing up with reruns of the original 1960’s television show on TV Land and the movies. And when I heard that there was going to be a prequel/reboot of the franchise back in 2009, I was less than excited. But, J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek was a thrilling, action-packed, entertaining joy ride from start to finish, that even non-Trekkies can enjoy. So you imagine that I was hyped as heck for it’s sequel. And low and behold after I left the theater after the Saturday matinee at the AMC, and, while I did have a problem or two, I was satisfied………… for about 3 minutes. After the initial rush wore off I began to see more and more of it’s flaws, and found myself hating it more and more with each passing day. But before we get to that, we must set the story.

From IMDB: When the crew of the U.S.S Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving our world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction. As our heroes are propelled into an epic chess game of life and death, love will be challenged, friendships will be torn apart, and sacrifices must be made for the only family Kirk has left: his crew.

First, the good stuff. The acting is amazing. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Bruce Greenwood, Anton Yelchin, Alice Eve, and Benedict Cumberbatch are all outstanding in their roles and are one of the reasons I don’t completely hate this film. Everyone are putting 110% into their roles and making sure that you don’t see actors, but the crew and villains of the U.S.S Enterprise. I’m especially pleased with Cumberbatch’s performance of who is perhaps the greatest Star Trek villain of all time, Khan Noonien Singh. Keep in mind, he had to play the role made famous by the late great Ricardo freakin’ Montalbán, and found someway to make the character his own, turning Khan from a cold yet calculating strategist, into a calm yet bloodthirsty warrior and still convinced me he was Khan.

However, that’s the biggest problem with the movie, the fact Khan is in it and the story. Don’t get me wrong, the story isn’t bad per say. The first half is actually really good and interesting. But after that halfway point, the ball is dropped so hard, it’s at the center of the Earth. The story stops trying to be original, and becomes a remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The problem with this? Star Trek II is considered a Science-Fiction classic, arguably the best of the Star Trek films, and contains some of the most iconic scenes and lines in cinema history. Actually, calling it a “remake” is being too nice, rip-off is more fitting as it lifts entire SCENES AND LINES FROM IT! It got to the point where Spock yelling out Khan’s name became uncomfortable,embarrassing, and hard to watch. Some may call this a nitpick but it’s this that truly keeps me from enjoying this movie. Star Trek as a franchise is to represent exploration, to seek new possibilities, to boldly go where no man has gone before. Not going back to already discovered land.

But does it live up to Wrath of Khan? Bluntly put, Into Darkness fails as a remake/ode to Wrath of Khan because of the story and the motivations of the characters. The reason Khan was such an effective villain was because he was an old villain from the TV show, who was stranded by Kirk on a deserted planet for trying to take control of the Enterprise. And when he shows up in Wrath, his main motivation is to gain revenge on Kirk and the crew and will do close to anything to obtain it. Into Darkness’s Khan has some of the motivation of Khan, wanting revenge on Starfleet and wants to protect his comrades who were put into cryo-freezing with him, but we don’t have a grasp on his motives and actions as tightly as we were on the original Khan. And that is what makes Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan such a good movie, it mainly focuses on what it should, the feud between Khan and Kirk. In Into Darkness, there seems to be a confusion on what the focus should be on. Is it about the coming Klingon/Federation war? Is it about corruption in Starfleet upper command? Is it about capturing Khan? Is it about Khan wanting revenge on Starfleet for abusing his skills? It’s a mess.

I’m torn on how to grade this movie. I won’t say it’s a bad film, but on the other hand, it’s not a great one either. The acting is tremendous, the visuals are pretty darn good (if a bit too lense-flarey), and the overall cinematography and direction are well-executed. But on the other, we have a re-hashed story that fails to live up to the glory of it’s predecessor and can’t hold a candle on it’s own, at least past the halfway point. The “Trekkie” in me gives it ** stars while the film critic in me gives it ***. I’ll meet myself in the middle and give it ** ½ stars. If you’re a fan of the 2009 film or not, you will most likely enjoy it. If you are a fan of the franchise, you may feel the same way I do. Either way, I suggest you rent this on DVD if you must see this.

Author’s Note: Looking back on this review, it may be my least favorite one I did, not because I think it’s badly written, but because I was WAY too easy on this movie. Since this review was written, I’ve grown more and more hatred for this movie. Really, I’d even avoid watching it on DVD. If you want my updated rating of the movie, 2 stars out of 5 at the most. At the least? 1 1/2 stars.

Am I the only person who is getting a little sick of Zombies? I mean, granted, it’s not as annoying as the Vampire craze a few years back, but it’s getting to the point where it reaches that level. It seems that the best way to get people to buy your game or watch your movie or read your book is to make the main focus Zombies, becoming more than a marketing ploy than a real topic. Now that’s not to say everything that has zombies that has come out in the last 10 years or so has completely sucked. Shaun of the Dead is still beloved as a hilarious horror comedy, The Walking Dead has garnered a HUGE following leaving us with a glorious game from Telltale, and Zombieland is one of my favorite movies of all time. But what makes these works, well, work is because they are doing something different with the idea of a zombie apocalypse. The Walking Dead is more of a soap opera with it’s focus on characters and MULTIPLE character deaths, Shaun of the Dead is a smart comedic look at the sub-genre, and Zombieland is just a fun, buddy comedy that takes advantage of the fact that it is a zombie movie. So where does that leave our topic of today, the 2010 anime Highschool of the Dead? Is it another cheap cash-in of the Zombie genre, or is it actually a decently made, well-executed entry? Well, to answer your question, it’s neither. It’s a HOLY CRAP THIS IS FREAKING AMAZING OH MY GOD zombie entry that’s a cheap cash-in on that cashes in on the ecchi genre of anime. I think I better explain.

From Wikipedia:Highschool of the Dead is set in present day 2010 Japan, beginning as the world is struck by a deadly pandemic that turns humans intozombies, euphemistically referred to by the main characters as “Them”. The story follows a group of high school students, the school’s nurse, and a young girl as they fight their way to safety through the deadly streets of Japan during the worldwide catastrophic event known as the “Outbreak”. As the cast tries to survive the zombie apocalypse, they must also face the additional threats of societal collapse, in the form of dangerous fellow survivors, and the possible decay of their own moral codes.

Let me start off by saying I friggin’ love this anime. From the characters to the animation to the story to the writing. But before we go further into why I love it, let me address the elephant in the room. This anime is notorious/infamous for it’s insane excessive amounts of female fanservice, which is an Otaku (Anime Fan) term for anything the show does to appease it’s fanbase. It could range from giving a popular character more screen time, to the more famous example, COUNTLESS SEXY FEMALE SCENARIOS. In Layman’s terms, breast zoom-ins, panty shots, and bottom shots. I mean, even during some serious moments, a panty shot can come in from nowhere, that’s how bad it is. Now, while this may come off as extremely sexist, I have no problem with it in this anime. Why? It’s kinda hard to say. It may be the fault of the dub, which plays the whole story as a dark comedy or the fact that it’s so blatant that it comes off as unintentionally hilarious. I know a lot of people can’t stand excessive fanservice of this caliber, so if you are one of these people, I can completely understand why people do not like this series. But personally, it doesn’t really effect me that much. And hey, if I’m looking at an ass, it might as well be an ass from a character I like, and luckily for this show, most of the characters are extremely likable. Which is a great segway into the main reason I love this show, the characters.

If I had to choose one thing that I liked about the characters in Highschool of the Dead, is that none of them are idiots. A big problem for me with teen-centered shows or movies, or hell, even zombie movies and shows, is that the characters are idiots. They don’t react like how normal people would. Thankfully Highschool of the Dead has a cast that is relatively smart and likable: Takashi Komuro, the leader of the rag-tag group of survivors; Rei Miyamoto, Takashi’s old flame and best friend; Saeko Busujima, the calm and collected katana wielding valkyrie; Saya Takagi, the arrogant yet brilliant hothead; Shizuka Marikawa, the ditzy but well-meaning busty school nurse; Arisu Maresato, the cheery little girl whom they rescue; and my personal favorite of them all, Kohta Hirano, the nerdy fat kid who starts off seemingly useless, but over time, reveals himself to be a gun fanatic who is a sharpshooter with just about any weapon.

But why are they smart? Well, for starters, they realize what you are not supposed to do around zombies in a matter of seconds; and that isn’t because they are science majors or anything, but because they understand BASIC COMMON SENSE. I also like the fact that they do address some biological problems with the zombie drama, specifically, the fact that the zombies don’t decompose even in the hot summer sun. It’s writing like that that makes this a bit more than your typical cheesecake, testosterone thrillride.

Another big praise I have for the series is the animation and cinematography, and I’m not talking about the jiggle physics or the countless cleavage shots. The animation for the series, while not on Studio Gainax levels of amazing, are still pretty damn good in their own right. And since this is an animated zombie show, you can go to places and show a lot more than any live-action show. Again, I’m not talking about the tits and asses. If I had to choose the most awesome moment of animated zombie action badassery, it would be Samurai School Girl Humvee Tilt Zombie Kill.

Is HighSchool of the Dead a “good” anime? Maybe not. But is it entertaining? Oh hell yeah,no doubt! If you have 6 and a half hours to spare, I’d highly recommend watching all 13 episodes. Even if you don’t like it, I think you can still take away one or two things you like about it.

What can you say about Tyler Perry? It can’t be denied that Perry is one of the most successful and polarizing personalities in entertainment today with people either loving him, remaining indifferent to him,or straight up loathing him. Personally, I fit more into the neutral category in regards to him. On one hand, I think he isn’t that half-bad of an actor, as he is very charismatic and can be very charming. But on the other hand, his screenplays are among the most cliched train-wrecks I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. As evidence, let’s take a look at Perry’s debut film (both acting and as a screenwriter), which also happens to be the first entry in the Madea franchise. That’s right folks, I am going to review Tyler Perry’s 2005 romance comedy-drama, Diary of a Mad Black Woman.

A Synopsis:

Helen McCarter (Kimberly Elise) is a happily married woman who is married to her husband of 18 years, Charles (Steve Harris), who is a very rich attorney. On the night of their anniversary, however, Charles is found with another woman and then tells that he is divorcing Helen and kicks her out of their house, with only a Uhaul truck, driven by obvious love interest Orlando (Shemar Moore). Helen is now taken in by her crazy grandmother, Madea (Tyler Perry), and now has to survive as an independent woman who need no man but is also trying to find that second opportunity at love.

Okay, let’s get the positives out of the way before I tear into this. One thing that genuinely shocked me was that, even though the writing is utter garbage, the acting is surprisingly good, especially from Elise, Harris, and Moore who play their roles with 100% gusto, trying as hard as they can to salvage their lines. I’ll also admit that there were a few times in the movie where I kind of half-smiled at the comedy, but those times were rare. And that’s all I have to say about the positives.

As for the negatives, oh boy there are a lot of them. While there were times I smirked at the comedy, for the most part, the annoying, psychotic screeches of Madea running around and flailing her arms drove me insane and made me actually yell at the movie to shut up. A minor complaint I have with this movie is that there are a ton of characters with a ton of subplots, which becomes tiring after a while and half-way through the movie, it becomes aggravating.

But my biggest problem with the movie is how predictable it is. In film, predictability isn’t that bad for the movie as a whole, but you need to balance that out with twists and turns which has people guessing what happens next. If during the entire movie, you can predict everything that is going to happen as soon as something is set-up, what’s the point of even watching? You know that Helen and Orlando are going to get together at the end, you know that Charles is going to be hit by kharma, and you know everything is going to turn out fine for the main characters in the end, which isn’t helped by the fact that the writing and characters are so transparent and so…… boring. This is a really boring movie. This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen in my life. Had I not wanted to do a review on a Tyler Perry movie, I would have fell asleep.

This may be my shortest review I have ever published, and I wish I had more to say about this movie, but the simple thing is that this movie just blows. Laughably transparent and two-dimensional characters, bland and predictable writing, and some of the most annoying comedy of all time. The only credit I can give this movie is it’s acting, which, again is good, but isn’t enough to save the movie. I give Diary of a Mad Black Woman a solid 1 out of 5 possible stars. If you felt the same way as I did about this flick, I’d highly recommend the Boondocks episode “Pause”, which is a great, hilarious parody and satire of not only Tyler Perry, but also the following his productions receive.

“Power, I said! Power to walk into the gold vaults of the nations, into the secrets of kings, into the Holy of Holies; power to make multitudes run squealing in terror at the touch of my little invisible finger. Even the moon is frightened of me, frightened to death!”

~The Invisible Man, The Invisible Man

The genre of horror has been with cinema since the early days of movies. The first horror film is credited to Thomas Edison’s (yes, THAT Thomas Edison) silent film adaptation of Frankenstein, made in 1910. While the next two decades were good to the genre, with such notable examples as Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, horror didn’t hit its first big boom until 1931, when Universal Studios released Frankenstein (the more well-known version starring Boris Karloff) and Dracula. These two movies were not only critical and commercial successes and remain two of the greatest American films of all time, but also started the golden age of Universal monster movies. For about 15 years, Universal released a series of movies that became iconic with the era and still remain beloved iconic champions of horror, The Wolf Man, The Black Cat, The Raven, Bride of Frankenstein, The Mummy, and Phantom of the Opera, just to name a few. The movie we are taking a look at today is one of these classics, but doesn’t limit itself to just the horror genre, but also reaches into the science-fiction genre as well. This is James Whale’s adaptation of H.G. Wells’s The Invisible Man.

A scientist by the name of Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains), discovers the secrets to invisibility and, after injecting himself with the formula, becomes invisible. But there is a problem, he doesn’t have an antidote. So Griffin must leave his laboratory and his love, Flora Cranley (Gloria Stuart), the daughter of his professor, Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers), and find solitude to create a drug that would reverse his ailment. But, with a great power in his hands, grand ambitions gradually form as Griffin turns slowly mad and crazed as a side-effect of the invisibility formula.

The main strength of this movie is its cast of brilliant actors. William Harrigan( as Griffin’s reluctant accomplist, Dr. Kemp), Gloria Stuart, and Henry Travers give solid performances as the group of people who know Jack is the Invisible Man and try everything they can to try and talk sense into the now psychotic doctor. The supporting cast is also fantastic and aids the comedic highlights of the movie. Una O’Connor as Jenny Hall, the inn-keeper, plays every scream so over-the-top, that you can’t help but start cracking-up. My personal favorite side character is E.E. Clive as Constable Jaffers. He acts so casual as everything happens, that I don’t know if it makes for a bad performance or a great one.

But the real highlight of the film, in my opinion, is Claude Rains as the Invisible Man. The amazing thing about his performance is that for nearly the entire movie, his face is hidden. He has to rely on his voice to convey emotion. But oh, what a voice it is. There is so much power and command in his performance that you can’t help but become engulfed by it. My favorite scenes of his are when he tries to comfort Flora but ends up spewing insane dreams of impossible grandeur, and when he goes on an invisible rampage through the village, causing mischief, which is the comedic high point of the movie. And one cannot forget his awesome, Joker-like laugh that will haunt you long after you see the movie.

Aside from a great cast, visually, the movie is unbelievable. The special effects used in this movie were groundbreaking in 1933, and still look pretty good by today’s standards. The cinematography and set designs are gorgeous, from the first scene of Griffin walking in an open field, to the final scene in the hospital, the movie is a feast for the eyes indeed. Director James Whale brought his signature style of a foreboding atmosphere, coupled with intense performances, striking shots, and a delightfully dark sense of humor with him on this project that was present on his other works, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, and The Old Dark House. I could not think of a another director who could have brought all of these elements together better than Whale.

The movie is different from most Universal monster movies at the time, however, which I think effects its inclusion in that circle of horror classics. It doesn’t include a man-made monstrosity or a supernatural demon. In The Invisible Man, the monster is the man. And not just a man, but a brilliant scientist, who “-tampered in God’s domain…” and let his ambitions and madness consume him. There’s a human element to the movie that really warrants re-evaluation after you first watch it, and makes you ask questions about the nature of science, the power we wield because of it, and the ambitions of those who misuse or abuse these powers. Should humans wield a power such as invisibility? Do we trust ourselves to use the power for scientific knowledge or would we use it for personal gain? These questions could make a very interesting debate.

The Invisible Man is a truly enjoyable work of cinematic elegance that warrants revisiting on multiple occasions. With deliciously dark humor, eye-pleasing visuals, and stellar performances, it’s not a movie to miss out on and I urge any horror fans to give it a watch, not only as a great movie, but as a history lesson of horror in cinema. As for recommendations on other films that you may enjoy if you liked The Invisible Man, I point you towards Bride of Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, and the 1943 version of The Phantom of the Opera, also staring Claude Rains as the title antagonist. Now, usually, I don’t like to rate classics, but for the purpose of this review, I give H.G. Wells’s The Invisible Man, a perfect score of four out of four stars, a true champion of cinema